2010 Seeding Formula: January 2008 update

Discussion in 'World Cup 2010: General' started by Edgar, Jan 23, 2008.

  1. Dr. Gamera

    Dr. Gamera Member+

    Oct 13, 2005
    Wheaton, Maryland
    Edgar, I have a request.

    Of the six components of the seeding formula, five are set; the sixth is the November 2009 FIFA ranking. So when we approximate the seeding formula, what we are really trying to approximate is the November 2009 FIFA ranking.

    You currently approximate the November 2009 FIFA ranking by using the FIFA ranking for the current month. Obviously, as we get closer to November, the FIFA ranking for the current month will more closely approximate the November 2009 FIFA ranking.

    However, the November 2009 FIFA ranking itself has four components: matches played November 2008 through October 2009 (date-weighted at 1.0), matches played November 2007 through October 2008 (date-weighted at 0.5), matches played November 2006 through October 2007 (date-weighted at 0.3), and matches played November 2005 through October 2006 (date-weighted at 0.2). With your data, you can easily compute the sum of the last three components; the rest of us can approximate the sum of the last three components by dividing a team's November 2008 points by two, but that overweights and underweights various periods (0.25 instead of 0.3, 0.15 instead of 0.2, 0.1 instead of 0). You can also compute the rating points for the matches between December 2008 and the current date, and simply weight them at 1.0; alternatively, you can weight them at 1.0, divided by 12, multiplied by the number of months of ultimately-1.0-weighted rating points that we have available. Either of those procedures would seem to approximate the November 2009 FIFA rankings more closely. (Also, if you published both the fixed sum-of-the-last-three components number and the current final-component number, it would be easier for the rest of us to speculate on what rating points a team will ultimately get.)

    Obviously, weighting just results from December 2008 at 1.0 would be silly to try in January 2009 (estimating a team's results for twelve months on the basis of one month), but now that we have seven months of results, it should work better.

    The problem with using, say, the July 2009 FIFA ranking to approximate the November 2009 FIFA ranking is that it overweights matches between August 2008 and October 2008. Those matches will ultimately be weighted at 0.5, but in the July 2009 FIFA ranking, they're weighted at 1.0.

    I realize from your web site that you have ambitions to do something more with this data than just satisfying the curiosity of BigSoccer readers. Also, you are clearly spending a lot of time and effort in coming up with your figures, and my request involves sharing more data than you might be comfortable sharing. But if you're up for it, I'd love to see the numbers.
     
  2. code1390

    code1390 Moderator
    Staff Member

    Nov 25, 2007
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Thats an interesting point. One team that immediately comes to mind is Portugal. They went 1-2-1 in WCQ between September and October 2008.

    I'm wondering if Portugal finishes strong and qualifies (which they obviously need to do), will those future wins plus the results from last fall being weighted 0.5 instead of 1.0 be enough for them to catch France for that possible final seed?
     
  3. usaforthecup

    usaforthecup Member

    Apr 17, 2009
    Apologies if this has already been covered. Does anyone know if FIFA has released the method for seeding for the draw on December 4th? In other words has it been decided to use the November 2009 FIFA rankings in combination with performance in the prior 2 world cups or is this to be announced at a later date? Thanks.
     
  4. Edgar

    Edgar Member

    I will look into it when I have the time. That's not going to happen very soon.

    No, there's nothing official regarding the seeding, draw etc.
     
  5. usaforthecup

    usaforthecup Member

    Apr 17, 2009
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by usaforthecup [​IMG]
    Apologies if this has already been covered. Does anyone know if FIFA has released the method for seeding for the draw on December 4th? In other words has it been decided to use the November 2009 FIFA rankings in combination with performance in the prior 2 world cups or is this to be announced at a later date? Thanks.


    No, there's nothing official regarding the seeding, draw etc.[/QUOTE]

    But if we assume it will be the same method/weighting as last time between the FIFA world rankings and the prior 2 world cup performances then that would at least give one scenario. I can take a look at this but wanted to make sure no one knew any reason why I shouldn't (i.e. someone heard that they were abandoning that method for 2010). Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_FIFA_World_Cup_seeding
     
  6. Andy TAUS

    Andy TAUS Member

    Jan 31, 2004
    Sydney, AUS
    The only thing you need to know is that FIFA will do what it always does: engineer the process to give them the seeds they WANT.

    That may be the same as the last WC, but I would bet you that FIFA:

    (1) will change the process (after they know who's qualified and/or likely to qualify) &

    (2) will engineer the groups in order to avoid having South Africa becoming the 1st host country not to proceed past the group stage.
     
  7. scaryice

    scaryice Member

    Jan 25, 2001
    They will announce their method after they have named the seeds, if 2006 is any indication.
     
  8. VioletCrown

    VioletCrown Member

    FC Dallas
    United States
    Aug 30, 2000
    Austin, Texas
    Club:
    Austin Aztex
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    And 2002. And 1998, if my memory is correct. And before that, I'm not sure if they even announced any method.
     
  9. VioletCrown

    VioletCrown Member

    FC Dallas
    United States
    Aug 30, 2000
    Austin, Texas
    Club:
    Austin Aztex
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Speaking of which, all the analysis that's being presented is assuming they'll use the same system they used this cup that they did for the last one. A sensible assumption... but they changed the calculation for '06. They used the same calculation for '98 and '02, but a new one for '06. There's no reason they couldn't change their minds and come up with something new.

    Yeah, it's probably even more of an exercise in futility to figure out reasonable alternatives, but I am a little curious if there'd be any difference if they went back to the '98/'02 method.
     
  10. scaryice

    scaryice Member

    Jan 25, 2001
    False. Past World Cup performance counted for 60% in 1998 but only 50% in 2002.

    If we went back to the 2002 method of using the past 3 World Cups, the past World Cup part of the equation (50%) would look like this:

    2006-2002-1998

    50%-33%-17%

    Right now (based on the 2006 formula) it's 66-33. So there would be no difference in the valuation of the 2002 results, but you would be taking 1/6th away from the 2006 results and giving it to the 1998 results.

    I'm not gonna figure out the exact numbers, but here's how the top teams would be affected:

    Helped

    Brazil
    Croatia
    France
    Mexico
    Netherlands
    Paraguay

    Hurt

    England
    Germany
    Italy
    Portugal
    Spain

    No Change

    Argentina
    Turkey
    USA

    So obviously the teams that did better in 1998 are helped. I think there's two big changes you might see in the standings. First would be Portugal, which would probably lose any hope to be seeded. Second, the Netherlands might improve enough to overtake England for a seed.
     
  11. Jwaksman

    Jwaksman New Member

    Jul 7, 2007
    USA
    Club:
    Maccabi Haifa FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    Doesn't really matter one way or the other. We all know that FIFA will cook the system to get the seeds that they want. It's the only possible reason for the fact that they never announce the system until AFTER they announce the seeds, and the fact that the system always seems to magically give the seeds to the teams that FIFA wants to get the seeds.
     
  12. usaforthecup

    usaforthecup Member

    Apr 17, 2009
    So can you confirm that these pages take into accunt the FIFA world rankings OR the FIFA World Cup likely seedings (using the same method as last time)?
     
  13. Edgar

    Edgar Member

    Yes, I can.
     
  14. usaforthecup

    usaforthecup Member

    Apr 17, 2009
    Thanks - I actually dug in and figured the system out. What you do is really cool. I guess I wanted to know if England can be overtaken and pushed out of the top 7 seeds but it looks unlikely at this stage. Thanks.
     
  15. Edgar

    Edgar Member

    FIFA Ranking: November 2009 top 50.
     
  16. shaunsindelman

    Apr 23, 2009
    New York, NY
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    So according to the July 8th update by Edgar, I would now be seeing:

    Current Standings - Spain v. Scotland, Germany v. Mexico, France v. Saudi Arabia

    Gotta admit I liked the previous match-ups in this one.

    FIFA Rankings - Argentina v Greece, Germany v. Japan, England v. Saudi Arabia

    At least I still get to see Argentina and England matches.

    Qualification Chances - Spain v. Russia, Brazil v. Mexico, Argentina v. Korea Rep.

    Last time produced better match-ups IMO.
     
  17. Dr. Gamera

    Dr. Gamera Member+

    Oct 13, 2005
    Wheaton, Maryland
    Many thanks!

    Will post more about this when I have more time, but some things jump out at a first glance. Germany drops from 1207 and 5th in the July 2009 rankings to a projected 1010 and 11th. Côte d'Ivoire rises from 874 and 18th in the July 2009 rankings to a projected 955 and 13th. And the focus of my particular obsession, the USA, rises from 983 and 12th to a projected 1015 and 10th; on the flip side, Mexico drops from 777 and 33rd to a projected 706 and 40th, although presumably Mexico will improve their average of 311.35 for the 1.0 time frame.
     
  18. Edgar

    Edgar Member

    Same goes for Germany. Their low "1.0" average is due to defeat against Norway and England, draw with China and win against UAE (all friendlies). They also won against Liechtenstein (not many points). Their other match is a WCQ win against Wales. Their remaining matches: South Africa (friendly), Azerbaijan twice, Russia and Finland (all WCQ).
     
  19. Dr. Gamera

    Dr. Gamera Member+

    Oct 13, 2005
    Wheaton, Maryland
    Edgar, I messed up somewhere in my calculations, but I can't see where. Mexico's 13 results in the 1.0 time frame:
    W Ecuador Friendly November 2008: 100 * 3 * 1.0 * 1.69 * 0.915 = 463.905
    L Honduras WCQ November 2008: 0
    L Sweden Friendly January 2009: 0
    L USA WCQ February 2009: 0
    W Bolivia Friendly March 2009: 100 * 3 * 1.0 * 1.44 * 0.915 = 395.28
    W Costa Rica WCQ March 2009: 100 * 3 * 2.5 * 1.53 * 0.85 = 975.375
    L Honduras WCQ April 2009: 0
    L El Salvador WCQ June 2009: 0
    W Trinidad and Tobago WCQ June 2009: 100 * 3 * 2.5 * 1.28 * 0.85 = 816.0
    W Venezuela Friendly June 2009: 100 * 3 * 1.0 * 1.44 * 0.915 = 395.28
    D Guatemala Friendly June 2009: 100 * 1 * 1.0 * 0.88 * 0.85 = 74.8
    W Nicaragua Gold Cup June 2009: 100 * 3 * 3.0 * 0.65 * 0.85 = 497.25
    D Panama Gold Cup June 2009: 100 * 1 * 3.0 * 1.31 * 0.85 = 334.05

    463.905 + 395.28 + 975.375 + 816 + 395.28 + 74.8 + 497.25 + 334.05 = 3951.94. But you have 4047.57. Am I using the wrong rankings for opposing teams in the formula or something?
     
  20. Dr. Gamera

    Dr. Gamera Member+

    Oct 13, 2005
    Wheaton, Maryland
    Wow, Turkey doesn't even make this list. I guess they have a pretty bad set of results so far, from a FIFA ranking point of view, in the projected 1.0 time frame: friendly wins over Austria and Azerbaijan, a friendly draw, and three losses. Sweden's situation is somewhat similar, and they also don't make the list.
     
  21. Edgar

    Edgar Member

    1.53 means Costa Rica at 47th. That was way back in January 2009.

    The Costa Rica match was included in the April 2009 ranking, so you have to use the March 2009 ranking - 32nd.
     
  22. Dage

    Dage Member+

    Jun 4, 2008
    Berlin
    Club:
    Borussia Mönchengladbach
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    It's more about the fact Germany didn't play matches since months. Your examples were the reason Germany dropped from second to fourths 1 or 2 months ago.
     
  23. Dr. Gamera

    Dr. Gamera Member+

    Oct 13, 2005
    Wheaton, Maryland
    Thank you for pinpointing the mistake I made so that I don't have to go through the whole calculation step-by-step all over again! (You must spread reputation, etc.)
     
  24. VioletCrown

    VioletCrown Member

    FC Dallas
    United States
    Aug 30, 2000
    Austin, Texas
    Club:
    Austin Aztex
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Got you covered.
     
  25. guynice_101

    guynice_101 Member

    Mar 24, 2005
    GTA (Toronto)
    Club:
    Toronto FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Chile
    Hey there Edgar,I was wondering if and when u have time,would you please be able to tell me if its possible for Chile to jump from 5th to 3rd in South America Coca-Cola Rankings for the September rankings?

    It would be nice to hear that we leap frogged both Paraguay and Uruguay and sit behind only the BIG TWO :D

    thanx again Edgar....keep up the great work
     

Share This Page